Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:20:16 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> To: "Brandon D. Valentine" <bandix@looksharp.net> Cc: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>, mwm-dated-1009255696.e529b9@mired.org, chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The Dirty Little Open Source Secret Message-ID: <20011220102016.B26326@prism.flugsvamp.com> In-Reply-To: <20011220030222.T21508-100000@turtle.looksharp.net> References: <200112200511.fBK5Bpl05690@prism.flugsvamp.com> <20011220030222.T21508-100000@turtle.looksharp.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 03:04:37AM -0500, Brandon D. Valentine wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > > >However, replacing Perl with C will be accepted, (and is being done too). > >So if you produce suitable working code, it will find its way into the tree. > > I would assume that also holds true for replacing Perl will > sh/awk/sed/etc? There are some things obviously implemented in Perl > because C sucks at them. Awk can do a lot of those things quite well. > Awk has just fallen into the shadows behind the sledgehammer of > programming languages, Perl. Ah, now things start to get sticky. One of the reasons why perl was introducuced was to replace some horribly nasty awk scripts that were just getting too unmaintainable. Yes, you _can_ do the same thing in awk, but the resulting mess is so bad that becomes too fragile. (If you want to see what I mean, look at "cvs co -p -r1.19 src/sys/kern/vnode_if.sh" for an example) If you're really interested in this, I can point you to a couple of people who are working on C replacements. The main reason C wasn't used originally was because of the initial effort needed in writing the various parsing code bits. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011220102016.B26326>